From: David Bremner <david@tethera.net>
To: "Alexey I. Froloff" <raorn@raorn.name>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lib: Add a new prefix "list" to the search-terms syntax
In-Reply-To: <20130408100336.GA1806@raorn.name>
References: <1364996763-19718-1-git-send-email-raorn@raorn.name>
	<874nfjj2lo.fsf@zancas.localnet> <20130408100336.GA1806@raorn.name>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.15.2+73~g1c450ec (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.2.1
	(x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2013 18:56:26 -0300
Message-ID: <877gkchek5.fsf@zancas.localnet>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Spam_bar: -
Cc: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."
	<notmuch.notmuchmail.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,
	<mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch>
List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,
	<mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2013 21:56:44 -0000

"Alexey I. Froloff" <raorn@raorn.name> writes:

> On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 08:54:59AM -0300, David Bremner wrote:
>> On the other hand, _notmuch_message_gen_terms does return a status. I
>> agree that currently this status is not useful, but that could change in
>> the future.  I also agree that the existing code does the same thing in
>> a few places, but I think it's better not to introduce more.
> Well, this is an adaptation of earlier patch, posted in this list
> some time ago.

Sure, no blame attaches. But somebody still needs to fix the patch or
convince us it doesn't need fixing. 

>  Personally I see no reason in indexing list description.

That's an independent question.  I guess there is the question of how
much overhead this introduces into 

>> Any objections to the list: syntax?  The only issue I see is that at
>> some point we will probably add a generic header search syntax, and this
>> implicitly says list-id is more important/common than other headers.
> Actual list ID differs from List-Id header value.  I can't give
> an example of other message header with similar syntax other from
> From/To/Cc, but those headers already specially processed.

OK, that part seems relatively convincing to me.

d